Kinda depends on what you do, money avaliable and if you find something on sale or not. If you want a bit of power and is about to do a total upgrade it's almost stupid not to go SB imo. More power overall, not a whole lot more expensive, dreamy overclocking etc. If you bought an AM3+ motherboard it could be worth it though, depending on what you do and what you had.

And for avarage users I just buy whatever is cheapest atm which tends to be AMD.

I don't buy entry level hardware so I don't care who offers more at that price range. I know that AMD mostly dominates the entry and low midrange, when you get higher and higher AMD starts to fade away quickly

Actually Bulldozer is a very competitive server CPU. AMD should strip all those server circuits and ramp up the clock speeds for the consumer market. They will do just that with the new Trinity. I wish that transition was done a way faster.

Actually Bulldozer is a very competitive server CPU. AMD should strip all those server circuits and ramp up the clock speeds for the consumer market. They will do just that with the new Trinity. I wish that transition was done a way faster.

Click to expand...

Yea that strategy worked real well for Netburst.

I see no reason to buy the FX-8150 over an i7-2600k. For just about anything heavily threaded, the 2600k is just good or substantially better than the FX-8150, while using less power, and when you factor in the motherboards from the test setups, they cost about the same. The 2600k is a superior product on just about all fronts. AMD has a chance with Pildedriver to catch up to Intel's offerings, but they need to bring Power Consumption down handily (that was originally a selling point with BD), Thread Performance up substantially, and keep the price reasonable. The FX-8120 is a pretty solid purchase for people who use the threads, but I would say an i5-2500k or i7-2600k are still better purchases.

""AMD should have given us a competitive new architecture some time ago, and now that they finally did, they are playing the "architecture of the future" card and wants us to wait for full benefits of Bulldozer's architecture. That's not fair to AMD fans and users. A launched product should offer its end user everything it can, here and now, not in a year from now, when the whole world could end even before that. A future proof architecture should be of concern only to the company and it's management, and while they can be somewhat pleased with Bulldozer, desktop users cannot.""

Right so, anyone(intel powervr) with any ideas of bringing us ray traced graphics should stick it up their rear because we wont have any games or use for it and 4k resolutions that are being banded about as future (proof) tech should not be brought in, after all whos got a 4K screen ,yeh stick your inovations up your arse dev co's, we dont want them not unless they make quake quicker NOW Ridiculouse on TPU fututre tech/proof counts for nought, really

and the fx8150 appears to sit on average between a 2500k and 2600k in games, where 98% of the world will actually use it ,that seems like a good cpu to me(i bought 960T awaiting PD) i mayhap shoulda bought it

IMHO new evaluation for ya intel2500-2700k are for peeps who only know how to multiplier oc(noobs) amd do decent chips for tinkerers

ABstract from conclusion i disagree with
Right so, anyone(intel powervr) with any ideas of bringing us ray traced graphics should stick it up their rear because we wont have any games or use for it and 4k resolutions that are being banded about as future (proof) tech should not be brought in, after all whos got a 4K screen ,yeh stick your inovations up your arse dev co's, we dont want them not unless they make quake quicker NOW Ridiculouse on TPU fututre tech/proof counts for nought, really

Lets say I supply the US army with F-16 fighter jets for a year now, and they've proven themselves to to be cheap, easy to maintain and most importantly an all round performer.

Now, after a year you show up with a F-22 Raptor, and you're all like "I got stealth, a future proof technology", and the US Airforce goes like "Wooooow".

But when they put our two fighter jets to the test, head to head, yours F-22 Rapptor is outmaneuvered, outgunned and outperformed as a platform in every way. Would you say that your future proof technology justifies your product failure?

If you delivered your plane to be used, it needs to make use of that future proof technology integrated in a whole balanced and complete package - product for end user. AMD has a new architecture, that holds a certain potential for long term growth and performance improvements. But that means little to us end users in the short term because they delivered a product on a level that Intel had a year ago, and by the time AMD reaches Bulldozer full potential, Intel will have Sandy Bridge - X which will be X times faster. It's hard to see "future proof tech" there

Edit:
The F16 vs F22 comparison was used just to make a point. Please don't troll about it

Still think it is funny everyone thought BD would be the best thing since sliced bread. I knew from the moment they released the preview of BD and Piledriver that initial BD tech would be so-so. Piledriver and beyond was shaping up to be much more interesting. Then again, first gens are like this.

Course this is what AMD needed. They needed a big change to set the course of their dev for the future, not necessarily be super right off the bat. BD does that. Intel has done the same thing in their tech too. Hyper Threading initially was pretty piss poor. But now look how far it's come.

and the fx8150 appears to sit on average between a 2500k and 2600k in games, where 98% of the world will actually use it ,that seems like a good cpu to me(i bought 960T awaiting PD) i mayhap shoulda bought it

IMHO new evaluation for ya intel2500-2700k are for peeps who only know how to multiplier oc(noobs) amd do decent chips for tinkerers

Click to expand...

How dare Intel use Multipliers for OCing, thank god AMD hasn't done that with BE chips for the better part of the last 5 years. Intel went with a stricter design that didn't allow for crazy overclocks to every element of the CPU, but offered amazing performance, efficiency, and at a great price. I'd rather OC my i5-2500k to ~4.8GHz and have it consume 240w under load than get an FX-8120/50 at ~5GHz using over 400w.

If you could OC a chip to 20GHz but it performed as well as a Toaster would you still love it? Because that's basically the logic you're implying.